Appeal 3370228

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Pebmarsh Conservation Area.

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes duties requiring special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The National Planning Policy Framework advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The appeal property lies within the Pebmarsh Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset. The character of this Conservation Area is primarily that of a traditional village with properties of traditional design dominated by an imposing church building.

The appeal property, whilst of modern construction, is a red brick end terrace dwelling of traditional design with timber window frames. The existing timber window frames and door, whilst in need of some renovation, make a positive contribution to the traditional appearance of the dwelling and the significance of the Conservation Area. As such, the dwelling with timber window frames and door, due to its design and materials, makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The proposal includes replacing timber window frames with UPVC frames and the timber front door with a composite door. Where there are UPVC window frames in the Conservation Area, I do consider that they detract from the character and appearance of the area. UPVC windows and composite doors do not replicate the traditional style, proportions and finish of timber window frames and doors.

In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised. In my opinion, due to the materials proposed, I consider that the proposal would unacceptably detract from the traditional design of the host building, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, but this would be less than substantial harm as set out in the Framework.

Where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the Framework states that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I realise that the proposal would improve the property's thermal performance. However, energy efficiency could be achieved in other ways. Energy efficiency is a material consideration, and I have attributed some weight to this matter, which would provide limited public benefit. I have attributed considerable importance and weight to the duty and the presumptive desirability of preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, which I do not consider, for the reasons stated above, are outweighed by any public benefits.

For the above reasons, the proposal would be contrary to Policies SP7, LPP36, LPP47, LPP52, and LPP53 in the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 (2022) particularly where they seek to protect and enhance the historic environment. In addition, the proposal would be contrary to the Framework where the Framework seeks to conserve heritage assets. The above policies are broadly in accordance with the Framework on this matter.